Stonehenge may have been burial site for Stone Age elite, say archaeologistsDating cremated bone fragments of men, women and children found at site puts origin of first circle back 500 years to 3,000BC

In the rise and wane of the cremation ritual I have hinted at the possible rise of the cremation ritual as a way of disposing of the dead in a way that would make their remains portable. Not sure what the current research has discovered but "cremated remains" + "builders from far" makes for a good combination.

If you do watch and learn something that might interest blog readers, feel free to leave a comment.

The team reckons that SH was originally a stone age, aristocratic circular burial site constructed 3000 BCE on a natural scar on the landscape that was engraved during the ice age and that is orientated to the sun on the winter solstice. They have 60 odd cremated bodies that they have dated. The large inner stones were put up 500 years later during communal gatherings by thousands of people who had gathered for winter solstice feasts from all over the British Isles. The ritual feasts ended 500 years after that with the invasion of Beaker people from the Alps.

The team reckons that the Beakers did not replace the stone age Brits because some Beaker bodies were found to have grown up locally. It was not clear to me however why these local bodies would be British converts to Beakerism rather than second or later generations of Beaker invaders. The team representative called the cultural diffusion model "more intriguing" than the genocide model, which seemed to imply that he has some psychological preference that may be prejudicial to his conclusion.

The programme was fascinating and well argued but I did feel that the team let themselves down with the Brit-Beaker continuity claim that came across as possibly glib.

I did wonder why we use burial stones when Brits did so 5000 years previous. Why? I guess because stone is permanent and is juxtaposed to the ephemerality of life. It seems to be a throw back to the stone age.

But there is another thing I find a bit odd, is that when they looked at the strontium isotope analyses of the teeth. They were only focussed on the British Isles. The climate and geological structures across the Channel are fundamently different from the British Isles and yet they claim that they only came from Britain.

What if people came also across the Channel from France during Midsummer and midwinter? If they could have travelled by boat from Scotland (700km) why not from France(<200-300km) or the low countries(<400km) too?

@Dienekes: "Not sure what the current research has discovered but "cremated remains" + "builders from far" makes for a good combination."

One discovery that should give us pause is that cremation was being practiced on the Salisbury Plain some centuries before the arrival of metallurgy. The "builders from far" are implicated in erecting the sarsens and trilithons (Stonehenge 3 II) yet still predate the Beaker folk. The latter, of course, appear to have most commonly practiced inhumation.

Considering that they have the molar pulp available from the Aimesbury Archer and other local burials, its seems that this Stonehenge 'documentary' is really nothing new- and pretty much entirely the exact same "yawn"-inducing speculation that is common on any internet site as opposed scientifically valid data.

The basic goal is to assert that Stonehenge is Pre-Beaker folk in origin, which seems possible given the actual Wood-built earlier structures on that site- but with the later stone site that we know as Stonehenge, the Beaker burial dates at the site seem to be right at the same general time the site was radio-carbon dated as being built.

The only real argument against Beaker folk building the stone site is the lack of discarded worked metal tools at the site (with the exception of inside the Aimesbury Archer burials themselves),and this is a totally unconvincing criteria because given the rarity of metal tools and worked metal even for Beaker folk at that time, it would be unlikely they would leave discarded metal tools beneath megalith stones to be found in the 21st cetury.. when they still needed the tools. Also the site has been pilfered and torn down over millenia, and some items have certainly been excavated or discovered.

All in all, without any DNA data from the Aimesbury burials, its a essentially worthless effort of no actual value, and pure conjecture that is pure speculation and nothing new, at very best.

Considering that they have the molar pulp available from the Aimesbury Archer and other local burials, its seems that this Stonehenge 'documentary' is really nothing new- and pretty much entirely the exact same "yawn"-inducing speculation that is common on any internet site as opposed scientifically valid data.

The basic goal is to assert that Stonehenge is Pre-Beaker folk in origin, which seems possible given the actual Wood-built earlier structures on that site- but with the later stone site that we know as Stonehenge, the Beaker burial dates at the site seem to be right at the same general time the site was radio-carbon dated as being built.

The only real argument against Beaker folk building the stone site is the lack of discarded worked metal tools at the site (with the exception of inside the Aimesbury Archer burials themselves),and this is a totally unconvincing criteria because given the rarity of metal tools and worked metal even for Beaker folk at that time, it would be unlikely they would leave discarded metal tools beneath megalith stones to be found in the 21st cetury.. when they still needed the tools. Also the site has been pilfered and torn down over millenia, and some items have certainly been excavated or discovered.

All in all, without any DNA data from the Aimesbury burials, its a essentially worthless effort of no actual value, and pure conjecture that is pure speculation and nothing new, at very best.

"The only real argument against Beaker folk building the stone site is the lack of discarded worked metal tools at the site..."

Which, from a scientific standpoint, disposes of the question, at least for now.

The only real argument against ancient aliens building the stone site is a lack of discarded alien technology and this is a totally unconvincing criteria because, given the rarity of alien technology even for ancient aliens at that time, it would be unlikely they would leave discarded alien technology beneath megalith stones to be found in the 21st cetury.

The same may be said of fairies, Sasquatch, and itinerant time travelers in search of gainful employment.

"The only real argument against ancient aliens building the stone site is a lack of discarded alien technology and this is a totally unconvincing criteria because, given the rarity of alien technology even for ancient aliens at that time"

While witty, the comment is pointless in fact-because asserting that the Stone megaliths are from a non-Beaker population, when we have radio-carbon dated Beaker burials on the site itself at the time the Stone Megaliths date to, is not a supportable claim based on evidence at hand.

Attributing the Megaliths to "ancient aliens" is also not supportable because unlike Beaker Folk, we do not have any excavated ancient alien graves on the site, let alone ancient alien graves that date to the time of the Stone Megaliths.

The reason that early burials are cremation/immolation could be a simple as the fact that wood and forests in the Salisbury region were plentiful for a thousand years,and during this time the site and its structures that have been excavated were made of Wood, and the human remains could be disposed of with Wood funeral pyres,but later on the same Beaker Folk in that region began to convert to burial of un-creamated corpses simply because they had limited remaining Forests in that area and the fuel supply was critical for cooking and heating, and they did not want to use 1/2 a years fuel supply each time they needed to cremate a family member at a time when the avg age of mortality was 35 years old...?

Once again, show me some DNA from these remains. Instead of testing the Archer burials, the staff and even visitors to the 'museum' where these remains are kept in the UK pose for photos holding the Archers Skull in their hand like a Disneyland photo with a Mickey Mouse costumed character, they have no gloves on to protect the skull from contamination, and are basically neither conserving the remains respectfully/professionally, nor exploiting the remains for any DNA..

Having watched the programme now, it seems to be the case that a number of comments have missed some of the detail, especially those by 'arch'.

To argue that "this Stonehenge 'documentary' is really nothing new" because the isotope results from the Amesbury Archer have previously been published seems to have no justification at all. The programme was mostly about the pre-Beaker period (e.g. all the cremation burials). Also, the Beaker Isotope Project which was referred to in the programme has examined some 350 skeletons, so creating a vastly greater knowledge base.

Concerning the comment "with the later stone site that we know as Stonehenge, the Beaker burial dates at the site seem to be right at the same general time", there are two misunderstandings here. 1. The bluestone only phase predates the Beaker period in Britain by 500 years, and the first sarsen phase predates it by c. 100 years (from radiocarbon dates), so is very likely also pre Beaker. 2. There is only one 'Beaker' burial at Stonehenge, with a wristguard and arrowheads but no Beaker, and this post-dates the first sarsen phase by some 300 years; there is also almost no Beaker pottery from the site, as well as the metal tools mentioned (although these would not have been used in any constructional activity).

Finally, I have been to Salisbury Museum many times, and have never seen anyone handling the skull of the Amesbury Archer.

@arch: It would only take one or two ancient aliens, with their amazing alien technology, to construct Stonehenge 3 II, so there may have been few, if any, aliens actually buried at Stonehenge. So, a lack of alien remains should not surprise us at all. Also the site has been pilfered and torn down over millenia, and some items have certainly been excavated or discovered. Those one or two alien bodies, if they were ever there, were likely looted centuries ago and the proof of their existence long lost.

Conversely, the Archer and the occupants of the other metallic burials, with their primitive technology, could not have erected Stonehenge 3 II all by themselves, whether individually or collectively. It is silly to imply that they could.

A frustration for me with this program was the lack of pointers to the relevant peer-reviewed literature. Compare with the BBC's recent Prehistoric Autopsy, where Alice Roberts posted links to literature. Notably, the book of Prof. Roberts 'Incredible Human Journey' was as well-referenced as any textbook. How much of the Stonehenge material was actually new? For example, I thought it had been known for some years that there were bluestones in the Aubrey Holes - yet this was presented as a new discovery.

Nick_T writes="Finally, I have been to Salisbury Museum many times, and have never seen anyone handling the skull of the Amesbury Archer."

There are literally dozens of photos I have seen of both staff and tourists actually holding the skull and bones of the Amesbury Archer next to their own heads, or in comic poses, (no gloves / no precautions of any sort to protect or respect the remains) that the Salisbury staff have allowed to be taken on the premises as gag photos.

I obv cannot post photos to this comment section, so see- http://www.salisburyu3a.org.uk/Archaeology/archaeology2005.html

Note that Rachel Seager-Smith who you see is posing for her own personal photo with the archers skull in this pic (no gloves, etc..) is not even a staff member at the Museum.. she is simply a private citizen who works at a non-profit.

The man who in the adjacent photo posing as he holds the archers femur up to his own leg, with a big smile on his face,(also a private/personal non-science related photo) Aubrey Manning, is a British TV personality.. not engaged in any science field or even a staff person at the museum that is supposed to be "conserving" the remains.

The fact that you did not "see" this fiasco of incompetence on any of your visits is like me saying that I have never actually seen a traffic fatality even though I drive every day on the public roads, thus there must not be any traffic fatalities.The tourist pics of Salisbury staff letting almost anyone play with the skull are very common.

Nick_T writes="the first sarsen phase predates it by c. 100 years (from radiocarbon dates), so is very likely also pre Beaker. 2. There is only one 'Beaker' burial at Stonehenge, with a wristguard and arrowheads but no Beaker, and this post-dates the first sarsen phase by some 300 years"

"Radiocarbon dating in 2008 suggested that the first stones were raised between 2400 and 2200 BC,[2] whilst another theory suggests that bluestones may have been raised at the site as early as 3000 BC.[3][4][5]"

There is no firm date on Stonehenge only a DATE RANGE.. Suggesting that in the span of 4400 to 5100 YEARS ago, you think a labs suggested guess-timate of +/- 100 years is able to make such a specific dating,is indicative that either you may understand how fluid the science behind the dating is, or how much time we are talking about.

Nick_T writes="There is only one 'Beaker' burial at Stonehenge, with a wristguard and arrowheads but no Beaker, and this post-dates the first sarsen phase by some 300 years"

There are at least 9 (surviving) Bell Beaker Burials in close proximity to Stonehenge.Two with the Archer and his putative son, and the "Boscombe Bowmen" burials of SEVEN people close by-

"a group of early Bronze Age individuals found in a shared burial at Boscombe Down near Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England.The grave contained a total of seven burials: three children, a teenager and three men. Analysis of the skulls suggests that the men and the teenager were related to each other."

"Lead isotope analysis of the men's teeth has indicated that they grew up in the areas either of modern Wales or in the Lake District, but left in childhood."

The Boscombe Bowmen burials show these Beaker folk were born in WALES were the same Stonehenge stones are believed to have come from. So, basically most of what you asserted is not correct..

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.